Bubblzey; I do hope that the perpetrators are eventually caught and brought to justice. I am also reminded of a recent article which was trying to suggest that we stop hunting for nazi war criminals now, as they are so old. I think we should never stop. The UN and international bodies have to keep hunting for these people and make them answer to their crimes.

But at the same time, I do not support the death penalty. To me it is not a question of punishment, but a question of who is allowed to kill.

I would hope that in a civilised world, we should not let anyone get away with gross human rights violations, and try everything in our powers to track the offenders down.

It has also been shown, over, and over that torture is not an effective way of gaining useful information from anyone. After being through (very mild, in relation) interrogation exercises in the military, you quickly realise that to stop the torture you tell the person whatever you think it is that they want to hear...which can often be a lot different to the truth. There are much better, more effective ways of getting reliable information out of people.

I have three concerns with this:
1) In war the winner writes the history, the loser gets nothing: see this quote on torture: will the perpertrators ever be brought to justice?
WASHINGTON - The tales are horrifyingly medieval in nature - terror suspects beaten, bound and bleeding, forced into coffin-like boxes, shackled naked to their beds in darkened cells, deprived of food for weeks, forced underwater to the point of near-drowning, ordered to stand for days.

But the macabre accounts of torture aren't emerging from totalitarian dictatorships or Dark Ages gallows - this was the 21st century CIA, with the full knowledge of senior officials in George W. Bush's administration, according to a secret Red Cross report.
2) How far back in history do we go? Everything is based on diplomacy, and a largely western view on 'what is acceptable'. We condemn apartheid, nazism. Do we try Mugabe for horrors in Zimbabwe, ANC leaders for horrors in some of the ANC camps in Kenya, etc, IRA leaders (and the Protestants)for 80 years of bloodshed, the palestinians (and the jews) for horrors in Palestine, etc. Do we seek reparations from the British for horrors in Boer War slave camps, the Catholic Church for the inquisition? How about the Chinese for Tibet, and even the Tibeten feudal lords for Tibet? Until we have a consistent agreement too many perpertrators are immune.
3) I personally do not believe wars can be regulated. Yes we have the Geneva convention. But if someone was fighting a war (which he believed to be legitimate, e.g. against oppression) I dont see why it should be expected to do so with 'one hand tied behind his back'.

I am sickened by war, by torture, by human rights abuses. But until everyone can be judged by the same rules I don't see too much justice in cherry-picking perpertrators.

Mind coming back and telling us who you are?

And yes, I believe that individuals should be tried for their actions. If there is enough evidence for a court case, I believe one should be pursued in order to responsibly carry out justice.

(sgb here and the previous long comment) I should have given the source for my quote. Many are available but here is one at random:
http://cnews.canoe.ca/CNEWS/World/2009/03/16/8771996-cp.html

I do mean individuals being brought to answer for their crimes, I see no purpose in holding ancestors guilty for the crimes of their predecessors. We would not conceive of doing so for any other crime, and I see no reason to make an exception in this case.

I think you raise an important issue with the torture and human rights violations carried out recently under the Bush regime. The US is one of the handful of countries which does not recognise the international court of justice in the Hague. I think that this is a huge problem, and opens the US up to all manner of criticism. Other countries, who have recognised the International Court, realise that should they, or their citizens, be guilty of human rights violations then they may be brought to justice by that court. We already have examples of people tried by that court, under UN control. There are people being tried at the moment following the conflict in Kosovo.

My background (other than being a concerned world citizen, and ardent supporter of the UN), is that I have served in the military in active service. I am completely convinced that wars can, and should be regulated under mechanisms like the Geneva Convention. In one conflict that I was involved in, the other side had no regard for the Geneva Convention (even though we, at all times had to follow it, and prove that we were following it). In another conflict, the enemy did observe the Geneva Convention, and not only did that spare civilian lives, but it also spared many military lives, and reduced the overall injuries sustained by both sides. It does sound odd, that a war can be fought to 'rules' but it can happen, and should happen, whenever there is armed conflict. There are some weapons and techniques available to many nations which are crudely effective, but should never be used (such as land mines, cluster bombs, biochemical weapons, nuclear weapons, etc.)

The US, in my mind remains a pariah until it recognises the authority of the UN International Court of Justice, and allows its citizens and military personnel to come under that jurisdiction.

oops, let me correct myself (before someone else does!). I have fallen into the common mistake of confusing the International Court of Justice (which can only apply to states) with the International Criminal Court. The official seat is also the Hague, although it can sit elsewhere. Basically replace references to the International Court of justice in my comment below with the International Criminal Court. Apologies! :p

Ancestors cannot be held responsible - they can be asked for reparations. See the calls for reparations for slavery.
(i do not agree with it by the way).
It is similar to the calls for companies that did business with the Apartheid government having to pay reparations - unfortunately a company is just the some of it's shareholders (people) and it is current shareholders who would have to pay. (Again, I agree with you - I do not think it is right)

Um, there seems to be confusion with the word "ancestor": they're the ones who have already died. I don't think that we should be made to pay for what our ancestors did. I believe that where there are witness accounts, victim accounts and admissible evidence, people should be tried and sentenced accordingly. While I believe that the slave trade was a terrible violation of human rights, I don't believe that, 400 years on, giving money to people is going to fix anything. Trying Nazi war criminals, however, is another story and those anti-Semite bastards should be taken down, no matter what age they are now.

sorry: mixed up my terminology . . .

They updated the link. Now Duch has apologised profusely for his actions and wants to be moved to a safe house, since he has been detained without trial for ten years. He says he tried to avoid becoming general in the communist army, but feared for his family's lives.